Theology Current Events Christian Living Identity

Why Racism Might Defeat American Evangelicalism: Part 2

Jarvis Williams

In a recent post, I introduced a series titled “Why Racism Might Defeat American Evangelicalism.” I mentioned the classic 2001 study of Emerson and Smith (Divided by Faith) in which they identified the American evangelical movement as a predominate white racialized movement, based on their multiple telephone surveys and face-to-face interviews with those who identified as evangelicals. I also mentioned a few reasons racism might defeat the current evangelical movement in America. In this piece, I list four more reasons.

I initially wanted to end this second post by offering a word of hope grounded in the gospel. But, because of space constraints, this post focuses primarily on additional challenges of racism within the current American evangelical movement. I will write follow up posts focusing primarily on the hope of the gospel, and on practical ways to defeat racism in certain parts of American evangelicalism.

  1. Conflation of Christian Identity with Political Identity

Certain American evangelicals conflate political identity with the Christian gospel. To them, to be a Christian is to be loyal to one political party over another. The recent presidential election demonstrated this point in that a large number of those who identify as evangelical voted for the current president. They did so even though his personal beliefs and behavioral patterns are not always consistent with what many would identify as evangelical beliefs or attributes.

Still, during the campaign season, one evangelical leader after another voiced support for the president. Some even justified support for him by asserting they were voting for the office of the presidency, and not for the office of a Sunday school teacher.

One wonders, however, why this same group of evangelicals didn’t apply the same principle to voting for President Obama when he ran twice for the presidency? The answer, in part, is because the term evangelical has now become equivalent with a predominately white and rightward-leaning political identity in certain evangelical spaces.

Even if one offers hard data to show this is not holistically the case in evangelicalism, there are those in some minority communities who at least perceive evangelicalism as a white, rightward-leaning political movement.

Democrats and Republicans have used Christians in past elections to sway segments of Christian voters to the polls to support them and their policies. To use the gospel as a means of gaining political support is biblically problematic, since the Christian gospel has no direct concern with either Republican or Democrat American political ideas or agendas.

Of course, there is at times overlap between the gospel and certain political virtues. But the gospel doesn’t endorse one American political party over another. Both political rightward-leaning and political leftward-leaning evangelicals who conflate Christianity with political identity ostracize many ethnic minority (and some white) communities within the evangelical movement, because ethnic minorities generally hold different political views from many of their white evangelical sisters and brothers.

Thus, if supporting a certain political agenda is a mark of American evangelical identity, then the current evangelical movement may begin to see fewer ethnic minority Christians identify as evangelical.

  1. Tokenism

Merriam-Webster defines tokenism as “the practice of doing something (such as hiring a person who belongs to a minority group) only to prevent criticism and give the appearance that people are treated fairly.” Behind tokenism is racism, because those who have token minority friends don’t love the token minority, and they certainly don’t care about hearing her or his ethnic minority voice on matters related to politics, theology, art, history, current affairs, business, culture, the bible, etc.

Rather, they love the appearance of not being identified as racist. That is, they want black and brown faces in white spaces, but not black and brown voices, contributions, or ideas in those spaces.

The token minority may be the safe minority whom those in the powerful majority feel comfortable including within their evangelical spaces. But this inclusion may come only after the token has received a stamp of approval from someone of prominence in the majority evangelical culture.

But, as soon as the token minority speaks or acts out of step with the ethnic majority evangelical culture on certain issues, certain folks within the ethnic majority evangelical culture may want to dissociate from the token minority because identifying with her or him is too much of a cultural cost. This dissociation may come to the token minority even when the token’s words and actions are in step with the truth of the gospel.

Sadly, this dissociation may be accompanied by slanderous accusations about how the token minority has abandoned the gospel or is playing the race card. But these accusations are code for “we no longer feel comfortable identifying with our token minority friend, because his words and actions remind us he is culturally different from us. These cultural differences simply make us uncomfortable. And if her or his cultural issues become our priorities, then we may lose some privileges in the evangelical community.”

To state the point bluntly, once a token evangelical minority says or does something that reminds certain people of her or his blackness or brownness (e.g. speak out against racism in evangelicalism or in the culture, constructively criticize a political candidate popular with majority cultural evangelicals, etc.) in ethnic majority evangelical culture, some within the majority (and even some from the evangelical ethnic minority) evangelical culture may want to shrink back from the token minority, or even sever their relationship.

If American evangelicalism has the sin of tokenism in its midst, racism will continue to be victorious in our denominations and institutions. Genuine, Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered love for one another is lacking where tokenism is present.

  1. Apathy toward Black and Brown Suffering

One cannot and should not reduce all of the challenges facing black and brown people to racism. Yet, racism has historically contributed to many of the challenges that have faced black and brown people in the American experience. And, yes, it’s also true there are many occasions when black and brown people have found themselves in difficult situations, because of bad decisions and self-inflicted wounds, added to their socially constructed racialized experiences.

However, when clear examples of black and brown suffering due to racial injustice are exposed—as well as other forms of racial discrimination against other groups—evangelicals should show compassion. Evangelicals should grieve when we see any form of human suffering.

And when this suffering arises because of clear examples of racism against people created in the image of God, we should care about those who suffer due to such racism instead of justifying, ignoring, or being blind to it. Racial apathy will not defeat the problem of racism in evangelical spaces. Instead, apathy will help racism thrive in American evangelicalism.

  1. Black and Brown Exodus from Evangelical Spaces

Far too often, I talk with black and brown sisters and brothers frustrated with (what they describe as) racial apathy in American evangelicalism. They also struggle with attending or staying enrolled in certain white evangelical schools, and being members of certain white evangelical churches, denominations, or institutions, even when they are in complete theological agreement.

I’ve heard too many sad stories about a frustrated and discouraged black or brown man or woman who altogether abandons his or her evangelical faith, because neither felt that evangelicalism appreciated or valued her or his unique cultural contributions. I often hear black and brown evangelicals say they neither think their cultural story is even part of the American evangelical narrative that’s often told. Nor do they think fellow evangelicals even care about the black and brown parts of the American evangelical story.

Thus, certain black and brown women and men who were once part of the evangelical community have left it. They perceive it as a politically, rightward-leaning white movement. And they think some evangelical spaces want to colonize black and brown people to forget their cultural heritages, to become culturally white, or to embrace one political identity over another before being admitted as full participants within the American evangelical movement.

In my view, one of the worst things that could happen to the complex American evangelical movement would be a mass exodus of black and brown evangelicals and churches from evangelical denominations and spaces.

The evangelical movement, as complex as it is, is becoming increasingly ethnically diverse in certain parts of the US. To survive, it needs the beautiful ethnic, cultural, and political diversity of minority evangelical women and men. But if black and brown evangelicals continue to leave evangelical denominations and churches and spaces, and if they begin to leave at larger numbers in the future, while the US continues to increase its black and brown demographic, the American evangelical movement stands no chance in defeating racism in American evangelical spaces.

In part 3, I offer a word of hope grounded in the gospel for American evangelicals.

10 thoughts on “Why Racism Might Defeat American Evangelicalism: Part 2

  1. Candace Wathen

    To witness the racism in white American evangelicalism, and their unwillingness to self-examine while they criticize what they do not understand, one need look no further than the comments on this blog. I look forward to your follow up article on hope! Right now I can cling only to the Lord’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against HIS kingdom. That, of course, is no promise of what will happen to a portion of His wayward people in the United States of America!

  2. Shelley Tuttle

    I really appreciate your reasoned understanding of the fact that Dr. Williams’ efforts to combat racism should not be undermined, but it is incumbent upon him to make clear evidenced support for his claims over observations and perceptions. That would help the followers of this post, I’m sure, be sure that what he is saying is founded in truth. That is when something truly can be understood and addressed.

  3. Shelley Tuttle

    Thanks, Dale. I had the same difficulty understanding Williams support for his arguments. He gives very narrow-minded answers for why evangelicals voted the way they did, and that the reason they didn’t vote for Obama two times was because of there inability to get outside of their identity to do so. How about the fact that Obama is pro-abortion and was willing to veto the Infant Born Alive Act? I am aghast at this man’s ill-conceived notion that identifies evangelicals as unreasoned party-liners.

  4. Shelley Tuttle

    Thanks, Dale. I had the same difficulty understanding Williams support for his arguments. He gives very narrow-minded answers for why evangelicals voted the way they did, and that the reason they didn’t vote for Obama two times was because of there inability to get outside of their identity to do so. How about the fact that Obama is pro-abortion and was willing to veto the Infant Born Alive Act? I am aghast at this man’s ill-conceived notion that identifies evangelicals as unreasoned party-liners.

  5. Dale

    I have to say that I am utterly bewildered by this article. Dr. Williams writes, “Certain American evangelicals conflate political identity with the Christian gospel. To them, to be a Christian is to be loyal to one political party over another.” Fair enough. I think the Moral Majority, on the right, and Rev. Jesse Jackson, on the left, would both be fair, historical representations of this error.

    But then we get off the tracks as Williams gives “evidence” of his premise. “The recent presidential election demonstrated this point in that a large number of those who identify as evangelical voted for the current president. They did so even though his personal beliefs and behavioral patterns are not always consistent with what many would identify as evangelical beliefs or attributes.”

    Two thoughts:
    1. There is simply no possible logical or necessary connection between the premise and the “proof”. Williams simply assumes, and implicitly asserts, that white evangelicals who voted for Trump did so because they “conflate political identity with the Christian gospel.” On what basis can he possibly make that charge?? Where is the evidence for this? Isn’t it possible that white evangelicals could truly love Jesus, be disgusted with Trump’s behavior, and still agree with his policies and disagree with Hillary’s? As Williams states it, there is no other possible explanation for a white evangelical supporting Trump than the error of “conflating political identity with the Christian gospel.” Is this what he truly thinks? As it is, Williams simply makes a bald-faced assertion, impugning his brothers and sisters of sin, and rests the charge on nothing but thin air.

    Secondly, Williams tries to bolster his case by wondering, “why this same group of evangelicals didn’t apply the same principle to voting for President Obama when he ran twice for the presidency?” Unless I’ve completely misread his intent, he seems to be wondering why white evangelics (who voted for Trump even though though his practice and beliefs are not evangelical) didn’t vote for Obama? The answer is so obvious I almost don’t dare say it…..Maybe it was because they disagreed with his policies?? Is that OK?

    This can’t be the way forward in this conversation. Just read the first few paragraphs again and ask yourself – couldn’t someone make the very same charges against black evangelics who voted, nearly en masse, for Obama when he was clearly intent on murdering the unborn and prosecuting Christian business owners who dared stand for their Biblical beliefs? But I don’t remember anyone making those charges then. If they did, they shouldn’t have. Why? Because politics and people are far more complicated than we often admit and therefore we need to be extremely careful, in the body of Christ, about judging our brothers and sisters who voted differently than we did. I wish Mr. Williams nothing but the best. But please, sir, we need to do better than this.

  6. Kara

    Thank you for your thoughts. I agree that the perception of evangelicalism as white and politically right-leaning will continue to alienate people both in and outside the church. For that reason, I am encouraged to hear your voice and others who speak up for a life following Jesus which is not constrained or defined by political ideologies. We need to hear multiple sides of how our faith can be lived out in the political arena, which is so influential in how our local and national communities actually function. I can’t wait to read about your hope!

  7. Mezzula5

    I agree with this:
    .
    “Dr. Williams’ efforts to combat racism existing in the church are admirable, and I have no doubt that he genuinely seeks to apply his Christian faith…” (a RAANetwork.org Poster)

    Peace,
    Mezzula5

  8. DCal3000

    I continue to be mystified that Reformed African American Network promotes ideologies that are inherently oppressive–especially of minorities. Dr. Williams, in asserting that “the term evangelical has now become equivalent with a predominately white and rightward-leaning political identity in certain evangelical spaces” goes on to write, “Even if one offers hard data to show this is not holistically the case in evangelicalism, there are those in some minority communities who at least perceive evangelicalism as a white, rightward-leaning political movement.” So hard data would make no difference one way or the other? This does not appear to be a mere observation but appears, rather, to be a prong in Dr. Williams’ argument. Dr. Williams seems to be suggesting that perceptions can stand on their own. Such an idea, which is antithetical to biblical teaching, is dangerous for the church and dangerous for whites and minorities alike. Racism in the past was increased by (often willful) misperceptions. Thus, by continuing to leave the door open for misperceptions, Dr. Williams only widens the wounds in American evangelicalism and does nothing to heal them. If hard data on any given issue would be insufficient to address “perceptions,” no healing is rationally possible. Even repentance of sins would fall short if the wronged party chose to continue perceiving a lack of repentance. In the end, by applying Dr. Williams’ analysis, we are merely left with different portions of the church nursing unanswerable perceptions about each other. Dr. Williams’ efforts to combat racism existing in the church are admirable, and I have no doubt that he genuinely seeks to apply his Christian faith. That’s why I think it’s important to sound warning of serious academic errors that will ultimately undermine Dr. Williams’ own efforts.

  9. Mezzula5

    I am grateful to be blessed by Dr. Williams’ presentation of this highly detailed, well articulated article. And Dr. williams does a great job of promoting key points from the classic book “Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America” by Emerson and Smith. I am anxiously anticipating the third installment of this educational series.

    Peace,
    Mezzula5

  10. Patrick Anderson

    I really like what you are doing.

Leave a Reply to Kara